From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6609c40f81b32989
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert AH Prins <spamtrap@prino.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:50:56 +0000
Message-ID: <87418hFg2iU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000@none.net>
 <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <m2tyrnjc5f.fsf@pushface.org> <4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <f5a9304e-e6eb-40b2-8944-a6ca4bc92b1b@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <hugevn02qfb@news5.newsguy.com> <op.vdv17504z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
 <4c0cc11c$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <huiia5$2k1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Reply-To: robert@prino.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net cI9rDPtPr68c+Yvaoo6NBwDnfu7bmS18KCPhuqeKcW6XyJpF6Y
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ergVlBHOgnN5khmgalQoXAGd9Tg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
In-Reply-To: <huiia5$2k1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11401
Date: 2010-06-07T12:50:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2010-06-07 10:40, Peter Flass wrote:
> robin wrote:
>> "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
>> news:op.vdv17504z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com...
>> | Am 06.06.2010, 17:19 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net>:
>> |
>> | > On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>> |
>> | > What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and
>> | > assembler?
>> |
>> | 6502 Assembler:
>> |
>> | LDA #10
>> |
>> | 6502 Machine code:
>> |
>> | A9 10
>> |
>> | Any more silly questions?
>>
>> That assembler was of a much later period than the one under discussion,
>> namely, the 1940s-1950s.
>>
>
> If you want to talk *really* old assemblers, look at SOAP. The hardware
> had no core, only drum memory, and each H/W instruction contained the
> drum address of the next instruction to be executed. A big function of
> the assembler was figuring out where to store the instructions on the
> drum so that the next instruction was under the R/W head just as the
> previous finished executing -- based on the instruction timings. Try
> doing that by hand for a large program!

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/staff/magi/personal/humour/Computer_Audience/Real%20Programmers%20Write%20Fortran.html

FWIW, this thread is getting far too long and has f*ck all to do with 
Fortran or PL/I and everything with ego's and one ego in particular...

Robert
-- 
Robert
-- 
Robert AH Prins
spamtrap(a)prino(d)org